Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ever take a physics class? In order to illustrate concepts, they make assumptions that simplify the topic at hand, even though the assumptions are false. If they're talking about gravity, they'll simplify it by removing air resistance. If they're discussing motion, they'll ignore friction. And so on.

I'm going to do that now...

Assume that every unit in any codex is worth the points that it costs. Pretend there are no over-priced units and no under-priced units. We all know that's not true, but that doesn't really matter.

The concept that I want to focus on here is Synergy.

If you and your opponent both have the same amount of points to spend, you need to find a way to gain an advantage on the table, and one of the best ways to do this is to design your army so that the different elements in it work together - synergy. This is a concept that the best list builders and players do automatically, but that will really step up your game if you can master it.

So, what kinds of synergy are there?

Target Overload:
Most people will include some amount of anti-tank weapons in their army, probably split between heavy armour (av 13/14) and light armour (AV 10-12), and some amount of anti-infantry, also probably split between heavy infantry (2+/3+ saves) and light infantry (4+ or worse). Target saturation is designing your army so that you overwhelm your opponent's capability to deal with any one type of attack. This means that your opponent is either left with weapons that have no effect (if you go for an armour overload, any weapon unable to hurt armour is wasted) or is left using weapons sub-optimally (using a lascannon to kill a 5-point guardsman).

This is one of the simplest types of synergy to achieve, and almost every codex can do this in some way.


Force Multiplication:

This is the idea that one piece of the army can make other pieces more valuable than they'd be otherwise. If we follow the assumption that a unit is worth its points, then if you can make that unit more valuable somehow, you have gotten a bargain. Often, this role falls to an HQ unit. Some examples:

An ork army pays six points per ork boy, which get almost no saves at all against shooting attacks. A Big Mek with a forcefield gives the boyz a 5+ cover save, increasing their survivability by a third. Instead of needing to inflict 60 wounds to kill the boyz, your opponent now has to inflict 90 wounds.

A Salamander army can increase the value of their flamers and meltas with the inclusion of Vulkan. The Eldar Avatar makes all nearby Eldar fearless. The list goes on.

In most of these cases, there is a fixed price you pay for the multiplier. The more you can leverage the effect, the better off you will be. Back to our ork mek, the forcefield costs 50 points. A unit of boyz costs 180 points, and the impact of the forcefield is to increase the number of wounds required by a third. That's the equivalent of fifteen extra wounds, which would ordinarily cost 90 points. The forcefield nets you a 40 point advantage when it protects a single mob of boyz.

But, because the cost of the multiplier is fixed, if you can apply it to more units, you benefit even more. If you can get two units of boyz protected, then your netting the equivalent of 30 extra wounds, a 180 point cost - still for the 50 point forcefield - now it's a 130 point boost. And, if you can fit six units of boyz under the protective field, your opponent is going to have to inflict 270 wounds to kill them all, 80 more than without the forcefield. At six points per boy, you're netting almost 500 points in effective wounds for your 50 point investment.

A good indicator that something might be a force multiplier effect is if you get some effect on 'all' (units/models) in (a range/your army) for a set price.


In-play synergy

Synergy is not limited just to list building tricks. Units that work well together on the tabletop also have synergistic properties. Of course, you make your list looking to use these units together...

One sort of synergy that occurs in the game is when you have units that make your opponent want to behave in the way that you want them to behave. An assault-oriented army with some amount of long-range fire can subject an opponent to make the lose-lose decision of whether to advance towards the oncoming assault, or to stay back and shoot in spite of the fire they're taking. Many people's defense against a Deep-striking army is to castle in a corner, waiting for the arrival of their opponent. But if the opponent also has several template or blast weapons, then bunching up anywhere is a losing proposition. These combinations benefit from the synergy that the defense to one approach is playing into the strength of the other.

Another synergy to take advantage of is allowing a resilient unit work to protect a weaker unit. This is very easy to accomplish in 5th ed, as a 4+ cover save is available for any unit that is behind another unit. If you find a good shield unit (Thunderhammer terminators, for example), then any unit deployed behind them gains a degree of their resilience, especially against low AP weapons.

You can do this with vehicle squadrons too. Deploying a squad of guard between two Leman Russes (in a squadron, deployed four inches apart) means that those guardsmen now have a 4+ cover save, without costing them much, if anything, in terms of line-of-sight. Likewise, vehicles can be deployed to provide cover for larger, more valuable vehicles behind them, without restricting their lines of fire (think of a Leman Russ behind a Chimera).


Well, that's my initial thoughts here - what are some synergies you use in games?

I am not sure what category this would go in, but i would call it "movement synergy" (probably a type of In Game Synergy). There are a few units that let you move other untis around the board faster. The classic example would be a librarian using Gate of Infinity with a squad of sternguard. Tervigons can let a unit run and shoot. Webway Portals for the Dark Eldar player. Imperial Guard Orders. You could also include any transport in this category as well, which is why they are almost always taken. All of these things get you models where they need to be.

Also on this, there are a lot of units that can deep strike, but deep striking can be risky as you can either mishap, or simply land too far away to do anything useful. That is where locator Beacons, Teleport Homers, Icons and the rest come in. All of these things eliminate the risk with deep striking. It lets you land exactly on an objective to take or contest it, in melta range of a tank, or even have a guaranteed deep strike assault. Scout bikers can move a beacon across the board for a drop pod, same for ravenwing and deathwing, so you can land where you want on the first turn.

40k has lots of Rock Paper Scissors relationships with units. Being able to move you scissors away from the enemy rocks and into their flimsy paper is very important.

Excellent post. I'll be throwing more opinions down as I get more time but I think all 3 of those are critical to building and playing a successful list.

So for I have been using the idea of making my opponent's investment worth less... (A force reducer?)

For instance, Tau are terrible in HTH, so terrible that any investment to make a unit better in HTH (power weapons) are essentially worthless... as the same unit without the investment would still beat the Tau in HTH.

Another use of force reduction, CC monsters not in HTH are points that have been spent on things that are not relevant. IE: Lightning Claw Terminators...

Another example of useless points is a full unit of 15 lootas against a LR.

Isolating units also helps as a single unit, no matter how awesome, can be shot to death and only respond to one unit at a time, hopefully by the time that single unit meets up with one of your shooters, they will not have a whole lot of fight in them left.

I agree, good post. I think you cover very important points there. I can't think of other major points right now, only of examples for the ones you've given.

For Force Multiplication, I think the Lord Commissar in an infantry guard list is another important example. For 70 points, he has several advantages: 1. He gives LD 10 to units that generally have LD 7 or 8 maximum and, in case of HW-Squads, also have a low model count, making fallback test rather easy to cause. This increases the stubborness of very valuable long-range weaponry by a great deal. Furthermore, his LD 10 bubble makes it much easier for the CCS and PCS to give orders to surrounding troops!

This way, the Lord Commissar is a top example of force multiplication, because he has several, interlinked advantages for a variety of units. His bonuses are harder to put into raw numbers like with the KFF, but the positive is very visible.

I feel thay way about most units. That some were evry units has a Syenergy with other units. That is what my Space Wolf Synergy Thread was about.

I like the idea here.


would you be interested in writing an Article for the next issue of "The Grand Master"?(my newsletter)

Good post and I'd completely agree. Synergy in its different forms is a key component of a successful list. Many new players ignore this aspect and build based on what looks good. Many power gamers ignore synergy and spam the "best" at each FOC slot. The truth is that good armies need synergy.

Some synergy I use is in the form of complementing units; the highly controversial lesser daemons. Many people look at the codex and instantly dismiss the unit. To me this is ignorance and shortsightedness. In a Plague Marine based army they are good against all the things PM's aren't and vice versa. They allow me to get extra bodies on the table in a low model count force as well. Many people don't take the time to examine complementing units and throw around blanket statements like "just take more Plague Marines" or "for 2 more points you get a CSM'. The truth is that if you take either of those suggestions you are taking more units that are weak to the same stuff instead of something that makes you more diverse and able to counter.

I have recently started a Chaos Daemon army and that list is completely made or broken on synergy. It is important to strike a balance as each unit plays a certain role. Many times the units are relatively one dimensional so careful list building and planning is needed or else the army falls apart.

Grey Templar wrote:I like the idea here.


would you be interested in writing an Article for the next issue of "The Grand Master"?(my newsletter)

No offense, but I prefer forums than newsletters or blogs. I prefer the feel of discussing something rather than telling people what to do. I'd rather put the effort into getting more interesting threads here.

Redbeard wrote:Force Multiplication:

This is the idea that one piece of the army can make other pieces more valuable than they'd be otherwise. If we follow the assumption that a unit is worth its points, then if you can make that unit more valuable somehow, you have gotten a bargain. Often, this role falls to an HQ unit.

A good piece I like it as an excellent overview of the concepts of effective list building given the assumption. I just wanted to comment on synergy.

Even with the assumption of 'everything is worth it's points' many builds and several entire codices are dependent on synergy. Therefore 'synergy' builds from any codex, and any build from a synergy themed codex, actually become a weakness if you can recognize it and knock down a link in the chain of synergy.

This leads to 2 points for competitive list theory:

(1)Generally avoid synergy builds, and don't play Force Multiplication dependent Codices when playing competitively.
(2)Learn to recognize these builds and codices and neutralize the key elements during play.

Some examples of Synergy builds from otherwise effective codices:
Blood Angels Infantry with Sanguinary Priests
Blood Angels lead by the Sanguinor
Tyranids with 1+ Tervigons
Imperial Guard Infantry Blob style armies with Orders
Imperial Guard Banners
Ork Custom Mech Horde Armies
Lash Obliterator/Defiler Chaos Armies

Synergy Dependent Codices:
Eldar: Seers, the Avatar and Warlocks to enable units
Tau: suits, and synergy with marker lights
Tyranids: HQ synergy, Tervigons, Swarm Lords and force mix

Codices that are not dependent on synergy generally make more capable lists overall. Specifically units that are not dependent on Synergy from an enabler are also generally better overall. This is why Imperial (and traitor) armies are so capable because the standard 10 model squad includes, grenades, a heavy, a special and a close combat specialist and is generally capable versus any opposing unit.

Thanks, Augustus, for unknowingly articulating a point that I've been having trouble with in this thread regarding Tervigons. I guess that syngeristic link is pretty tough, however.

Augustus wrote:
A good piece I like it as an excellent overview of the concepts of effective list building given the assumption. I just wanted to comment on synergy.

Even with the assumption of 'everything is worth it's points' many builds and several entire codices are dependent on synergy. Therefore 'synergy' builds from any codex, and any build from a synergy themed codex, actually become a weakness if you can recognize it and knock down a link in the chain of synergy.

This leads to 2 points for competitive list theory:

(1)Generally avoid synergy builds, and don't play Force Multiplication dependent Codices when playing competitively.
(2)Learn to recognize these builds and codices and neutralize the key elements during play.

I think there's a difference between having an army that uses synergy, and an army that is dependent upon some piece working. The latter really isn't an example of synergy, it's an example of dependence. If a unit is only good in conjunction with another unit, then that's a weakness that can, and should be exploited.

You can take Vulkan out of a melta/flamer based marine army and still have a pretty solid strategy. He makes what you have better, but the army isn't dependent on him. That's synergy.

If you take Epidemius out of a nurgle daemon army, you lose effectiveness. If you're playing an Epidemius army, you're depending on his power for the army to work effectively. That's not synergy, that's a key piece. (Fortunately for the daemon player, you can bury him in 20 plague bearers to keep him safe)

Codices that are not dependent on synergy generally make more capable lists overall. Specifically units that are not dependent on Synergy from an enabler are also generally better overall. This is why Imperial (and traitor) armies are so capable because the standard 10 model squad includes, grenades, a heavy, a special and a close combat specialist and is generally capable versus any opposing unit.

I'm not sure I agree. Imperial (and traitor) armies benefit from flexibility, which can be a strength, but it's not the only approach. Your imperial squad with one heavy weapon doesn't stand much of a chance against a xenos heavy weapon unit (lootas, dark reapers, crisis suits), and your one combat specialist pales in comparison with a unit of genestealers or bloodthirsters. The price you pay for being a jack-of-all-trades is that you're a master of none. The xenos armies can beat you in whatever they choose to do well, and you have to rely on another method to win.

Even still, picking weapons in a squad is another place to find synergies. A unit with a lascannon is better served with a plasma gun as a special, as they're both AP2, and work well together when you have to shoot 2+ models. If your guard squad with a heavy bolter is going to be shooting at infantry anyway, at 36" range, a sniper rifle is a synergistic special for that squad, moreso than a meltagun.

When I think of Warhammer 40k I think of it in terms of Synergy, Redundancy, and Flexibility (not necessarily in that order). These properties need to be balanced at the unit level with the army level, so all else being equal a specialized unit with highly redundant models can alleviate the need to have more generalized units with fewer redundant models to achieve a particular task.

In terms of Synergy, there's Rules Synergy, by which one unit has a synergistic rule that acts as a force multiplier as Redbeard described, and there's Tactics Synergy, by which the actions of one unit can act as a force multiplier.

One example of Tactics Synergy is a flanking assault, where two units assault an enemy unit. Because that enemy unit will fall back towards the board edge, it will fall back away from the unit charging it from the opposite direction, and across the unit charging it from a perpendicular angle or even from the direction of the table edge. More than likely this will level the falling back unit within 6" of the flanking unit, and it will not be able to regroup. This tactic is particularly useful against units with And They Shall Know No Fear.

Tactics Synergy can be combined with Rules Synergy. A Tyranid army can, for example, more a unit of Termagants up beyond Synapse range so that they are no longer Fearless and will not suffer from No Retreat if they lose a combat. If they are not caught in a Sweeping Advance, they simply fall back into Synapse and automatically regroup as they become Fearless again.

Target overload, however, I would classify as a factor of Redundancy since there is no Rules Synergy and only incidentally Tactics Synergy: the sum of the units present is precisely the quality that is being emphasized. For example one of the basic facts about 40k is that a unit can only shoot one other unit, pending special rules, scattered blasts, and so on. By having two units while your opponent has one means that, again pending special rules, one of your own units is not going to get shot. Now, if one of your units was a vehicle and blocked line of sight to your infantry unit, then that would be an example of Tactics Synergy.

Speaking of target saturation, something to consider is that Flexibility is the third axis of this strategy pyramid. If you can engage targets of all types, then emphasizing the Redundancy of a particular type is not going to overwhelm your opponent's ability to engage them, at least not anymore than having more units than s/he can shoot at will overwhelm them. It's the reason why Missile Launchers, Autocannons, Obliterators, and other flexible items are given a premium value both in the game and by the players. In terms of weapons, Flexibility can be measured in range, as longer ranged weapons are generally able to engage more targets, strength, as stronger weapons are generally more reliable at causing damage to a variety of targets, and so on. The Autocannon's combination of high Strength and two shots means that it's a very flexible weapon because the Strength make it reliable enough that its lack of potential as an anti-infantry weapon is almost alleviated, and the extra shot makes it reliable enough that its lack of Strength as an anti-vehicle weapon is almost aleviated.

These are also not independent variables, as they can co-maximize. A unit can be flexible enough to synergize in several difference ways, or be redundant for several different roles. A unit may because more flexible through synergy, for example by being joined by an Independent Character that makes up for their shortcomings (Abbadon plus Obliterators, for example), or occupying a transport to make them less squishy (Imperial Guard, Chimeras, nacht). Synergy can even maximize redundancy as Redbeard illustrated with the example of the Kustom Force Field generator. Redundancy can prevent synergies from forming weak points, like having two Meks with Kustom Force Fields prevents a Mek from assassinated and leaving the Orks high and dry, or having an entire army composed of generalist units.

However, I reject the notion that there is a perfect army, although there may be a perfect cluster of mixed strategies that displaces other options. Even an army that maximizes all three properties will fail if the player encounters opponents who aren't playing to win so much as playing to avoid losing. Call it the Kolrami Trap after the due in the ST:TNG episode where Data gets his butt kicked in a game called 'stratagema'.

Consider the example of the Big Mek with the Kustom Force Field. While he can synergize with Ork mobs to maximize the redundancy of their huge unit size, he can be picked out by snipers such as the Vindicare and Telion, or picked out in close combat by a kill-team unit such as Blood Angels Vanguard Veterans. Trying to maximize synergy can cause your army to have points of weakness, trying to maximize redundancy can leave them woefully underequipped to face a range of opponents, and emphasize on flexibility may reduce overall punching power.

Good post. I always put synergy and dependency together as if they were they same thing.

That was an eye opener really, when I read it, it all sounded so simply and obvious yet I had misused the ideas myself.

It is really amazing how some people say "A is useless because for B amount of points you can get a XYZ" and yeah that is true, you could get that unit, but there is a reason you are not.

Augustus wrote:
Codices that are not dependent on synergy generally make more capable lists overall. Specifically units that are not dependent on Synergy from an enabler are also generally better overall. This is why Imperial (and traitor) armies are so capable because the standard 10 model squad includes, grenades, a heavy, a special and a close combat specialist and is generally capable versus any opposing unit.

Redbeard wrote:I'm not sure I agree. Imperial (and traitor) armies benefit from flexibility, which can be a strength, but it's not the only approach. Your imperial squad with one heavy weapon doesn't stand much of a chance against a xenos heavy weapon unit (lootas, dark reapers, crisis suits), and your one combat specialist pales in comparison with a unit of genestealers or bloodthirsters. The price you pay for being a jack-of-all-trades is that you're a master of none. The xenos armies can beat you in whatever they choose to do well, and you have to rely on another method to win....

Surely speaking in generalities like I did is fraught with danger. I shall ad a few more details.

Lets define a difference between dependency and synergy. I challenge this:

Redbeard wrote:The price you pay for being a jack-of-all-trades is that you're a master of none.

with this

The price you pay for specializing in one area is sacrificing the others.

Once again this a generality, and it doesn't apply equally across the board, but many specialist sacrifice everything else for their specialty. I'd take a tactical squad with a missile a flamer and a fist over an equivalent cost in Termagaunts, Genestealers, Eldar or Bloodletters every time because the Marines have a chance everywhere, where the specialists are only valuable in a very narrow scope. Furthermore many specialist units especially Eldar, trade everything for the one specialty, for example most Eldar units have no armor, no grenades, no anti tank, no morale rule, genestealers are a similar example.

Furthermore, many units are only capable at all with a synergistic (dependency if you will).
What good are Termagaunts without a Tervigon?
What good are Dire Avengers without an Avatar/Exarch or farseer?
What can regular IG infantry Blobs do without orders?
Seeker missiles and no Markerlights?
Banshees without Doom?
Malanti without a Pod?
...etc...

Furthermore, not in all cases, but in many, an Imperial squad, like a basic Tactical marine squad, will actually out perform a 'dependent specialist' unit point for point AND be more valuable across the board too when the dependency is missing or broken.

Augustus wrote:
Lets define a difference between dependency and synergy. I challenge this:

Redbeard wrote:The price you pay for being a jack-of-all-trades is that you're a master of none.

with this

The price you pay for specializing in one area is sacrificing the others.

You're right, the price you pay for specializing is sacrificing the others, and it's what makes the different armies different. But flexibility is not the same as synergy, and dependence is not the same either.

You say, let's define a difference, and I think that's a good place to start. Definitions have value.

Dependence: A unit requires some other unit in order to function at a reasonable level.

Examples:
Seeker Missiles are dependent upon marker lights to have any impact on the game. If all the markerlights are killed, the seeker missiles lose all value.
Malanti is dependent upon a pod to get into position to be useful (although, to be fair, it's a dedicated transport that cannot be destroyed before it has served its purpose, so this isn't really a horrible dependency).

Flexibility: The ability of a unit to perform different tasks. A unit with high flexibility is of great tactical benefit, as it will never find itself useless. But you pay for that.

Synergy:
The ability of multiple units to work together at a higher level than either would work at individually.

You listed Banshees as being dependent upon Doom to work. I think that's untrue. Banshees are perfectly decent when they attack a non-doomed enemy. They may get less kills than against a doomed target, but they're still a threat that your opponent has to contend with.

I'd like to go into more detail, but I'm going to miss my train if I don't leave now, so more later.

I'm glad you posted this, synergy seems to be something that's ignored in 40k. I've been playing a lot more Warmachine lately where synergy is the biggest factor, rather than list building, so I've been trying to incorporate this into 40k and I must say that it's worked pretty well.

An in game synergy that I've had good luck with is using pariahs. Alone, they're not that great. I3 A1 W1 combat specialists aren't all that great by themselves, but when you put them together with the Deceiver, flayed ones, and a lord with nightmare shroud they become a much stronger choice than most would have you believe.

Their ability to make every enemy unit within 12 inches of them LD 7 coupled with 2 units that force break tests, one of those working against fearless units, is quite good. And then, the terrifying visage rule that flayed ones have works very well with pariahs.

Typically, I don't send them into combat and just make use of that ability and their built in gauss blasters.

This is one of the most mature threads on dakka in a long time. Whats change?

I like the idea of synergy. I am not sure if this has already been brought up, but what about using multiples of the same unit for something, like tankshocking an ork blob with a vindicator, then hitting one of the split blobs with another vindicator/ blast weapon. Dose that still count as synergy?

Yes because it increases the "worth" of those template weapons...

Agreed, and its Game synergy, using PLAY to have units compliment each other.

Great thread, great discussion. I often mistake "synergy" for "target saturation" myself, but with a FLGS that has a LOT of anti-mech, my only synergy is a KFF for the foot sloggin' Boyz.
Even Auto Cannons don't matter much against 90+ Boyz, but it is *only* the KFF that makes it possible.

I agree wholeheartedly with the example the OP gave of a Space Marine Army with one Dreadnaught. *Everything* can work well against that army (or as well as they work against MEQ). I will always remember my first time facing a mechanized army of Black Templars. 80% of my units were useless (3rd ed. Space Wolves) and relied on my Longfangs/Dread to pop some Rhinos.

That was an eye opener of a game.

Yay, a good tactics thread!

This is something I have been doing more and more recently as my tactics have improved. One of my favorite armies to play and one that is totally dependent on synergy is Doublewing. From issuing the HQs to make terms and bikes troops, to maximizing apothecaries, to the core strategy of using the bikes' teleport homers to bring in the terminators right where I want them, the whole army depends On synergy. It ends up being really fun and challenging to play with and surprisingly powerful on e tabletop.

That's one of the things I like about synergy, your opponent will often have no idea how to counter your army unless they have a lot of experience against it.

Happygrunt wrote:This is one of the most mature threads on dakka in a long time. Whats change?

Well, there's this other thread saying that the site is going down hill, so it's time to make a conscious effort to change that.

I like the idea of synergy. I am not sure if this has already been brought up, but what about using multiples of the same unit for something, like tankshocking an ork blob with a vindicator, then hitting one of the split blobs with another vindicator/ blast weapon. Dose that still count as synergy?

Sure, tank shocking things to bunch them up before the templates start flying is another good example of synergy. You have two things (the blast template, and the tank) that are good, but together, you get more out of them.

Redbeard wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:This is one of the most mature threads on dakka in a long time. Whats change?

Well, there's this other thread saying that the site is going down hill, so it's time to make a conscious effort to change that.

You are now a hero of DakkaDakka. And as I read your post, this song came up in my music. It is fitting for you and all heroes of Dakkadakka. We should all follow your example, and make content rich threads that stimulate adult conversation about toy soldiers! HUZZAH!

I think if you're going to call tactics 'synergy', then you're in the right place.

Some good points have been raised, although I disagree with some claims such as a list having synergy being a weakness in any way at all.

It is not a weakness to have units which make other units more powerful UNLESS that unit is bad on its own. A tervigon is a scoring T6 6 wounds 3+ save monstrous creature that produces on average like 20 troopers, has a S5 large blast gun he can shoot while moving, and isn't very pricey. It's not a lynchpin necessary for victory. If your enemy wastes all his guns on tervigons instead of shooting the two hive tyrants and two trygons, then it's hardly a bad choice to include in an army. If the enemy can't kill it since it isn't the most damage-dealing unit in the army and he has to shoot at those instead, then the synergy is pretty much guaranteed. Win-win for tyranids. I can't see a list with just hormagaunts and no tervigons in it to be superior in any way. You aren't relying on "synergy" yet it means you have hormagaunts with no buffs! How is that possibly game-winning to have weak units instead of strong-units-which-occasionally-become-weak-units?

Are guardsmen suddenly bad the occasional turn they don't receive an order? Not really. They don't lose power weapon attacks without an order. They're 5 points each and I think charging or rapid-firing guardsmen can point-for-point put up a fight against space marines just fine considering you have 3 guards for every 1 marine.

Are Obliterators suddenly bad the occasional turn the enemy isn't lashed together? Nope.

As acknowledged above, Doom of Malantai has no dependency whatsoever because his synergy is good in every way. The pod can't be shot at until he appears, where he wants to and gets to shoot. OH NO THE WEAKNESS!


Someone else said banshees without Doom do okay. Do they auto-win the game without the synergy? Maybe not. That doesn't mean they're bad without it, just average. There are often no troop units which are exceptional alone in all situations, which is the only time your list would need zero synergy. Making a list without synergy often takes away game-winning advantages.


Also, I don't believe there is any disadvantage at all to specializing units. If all your devastator squads have 2 heavy bolters + 2 lascannons, they're "flexible", will you win games? No. Every time you shoot at something, you are underperforming. Guns have range which allows them a selection of different targets, making specializing lack drawbacks.

You don't want to be paying for combat upgrades to shooty units in most situations. You win the game by buying shooty upgrades for shooty units, then using tactics such that the unit shoots instead of being in assaults.
A "flexible" unit excels nowhere, thus it has little chance of winning a game. If you're so-so at shooting and so-so at combat, a draw or loss is probably most likely because if the enemy stands at max range, he'll outgun you, yet your performance in combat will be mediocre and you won't be able to shoot any heavy guns which have to move.

Say you buy a troop squad a powerfist and a heavy bolter. If you're standing at range, you never use the powerfist, bad buy. If you're moving towards the enemy to use the powerfist, you're never using the heavy bolter, again a bad buy.

Specializing and synergy are the ways to go.

I like this thread. While I admit I am not as Synergetic as I would like to be, I do try.

Like having Havocs running around with four flamers and a power weapon supporting my Close Combat units. nobody sees that coming.

Most "tactical" games, Warhammer, Command and Conquer, Starcraft etc have one "downfall" in the synergy department. Downfall might not be the correct word but bear with me.

Lets assume you build a list that mixes CC and Long Range Shooting, to force your opponent to walk into your Specialized CC units, while your long range guys help them out by thinning the enemy ranks. At some point, in some lifetime you can convince some-one that this is synergy.

Is it really? Probably not, because synergy relies on the fact that your oppenent is going co-operate, in terms of his army. He deep strikes some guys on top of your long range cover fire, and guns down your CC.

Your synergy was there but it was broken up by your opponents "synergy". This is why they are called tactical games.

Any single list requires a certain set of elements, if those elements have no synergy, why would it be "more" or "less" powerful than a list that does not, in strict sense of the word, have any synergy?

Succesful ELEMENTS:

AT - wasted if your opponents have no tanks(seldom - but it happens)
Anti Horde - wasted if you opponents have no hordes (less wasted because anti-horde can come in the form of Anti-MEQ)
Objective Capturing - You need troops, and some of the troop units force you to play "out" of synergy to be able to score since 5th Ed.
Anti-Cover - Never wasted in 5th ED.
Resilience - This is auto synergy, because if you can't double up on a single role(AT, Anti-Horde etc) then that portion of the opposing list will wipe you out since you cannot effectively deal with it.
(there are more, but this is enough to make my point)

Does synergy matter, if in isolation, each of your list's capabilities are doubled up, to achieve a single goal. Two Eldar FD squads, and two FirePrisms that should be enough AT. 2 Dire Avenger Squads with Bladestorm and 2 FirePrisms, should be able to kill quite a few horde units. Is this synergy, or application of design philosophy?

When Games Workshop sit down to write a codex, they have a design principle in mind. First and foremost that principle is FUN. Fun lends itself towards all aspects, synergy, power level, fluff etc. Depending on the TYPE of player you are, what makes the game fun will be different. But applying synergy provided to us by GW, does not mean we are building a synergestic list, it means we are applying a design principle. I have no idea, other than fun, what GW's design principles are, but I feel I can state the following:

Every codex has something Amamzing, Bad, Average and Good. Some units CANNOT be made good and MOST units cannot be made amazing. No matter how much synergy you attempt to apply. Starting your list at competetive, automatically exludes many units from being selected, and because you are excluding things, you are failing at GW's first design principle - FUN(in it's purest form).

If you are only playing to win, that means that you are trying to Create something, that does not exist. Synergy is there, is simple forms, but no REAL synergy exists. There are no hidden "gems" that simply slot in so well together that it seems that GW created the unit specifically to work with another unit. All the information is there, and every possible combination of units within a given point system is availbe to you. So by choosing good units that fill specific roles, it does not mean that I have a synergestic list, it simply means that my list "can" achieve things. Given the world of variables that are dice, opponents, terrain and opposing army lists, at which point does the synergy really matter? "Synergy" becomes less and less relevant as you play skill increases.

Adding a farseer to ANY unit in the Eldar codex, seems like synergy because their powers make something else better. Not amazing, but better.

Following my extremly convoluted train of thought, I just wanted to attempt to point out that definition of Synergy(and the original post tried to explain WHAT synergy is) varies based on your game principles. My gaming principle is not losing every game. I build my lists for fun, and then try to make sure I didn't pick a "bad" unit. There is synergy in the fact that everything in my army doesn't suck. According to me that's synergy.

It's the first and most important rule in the rulebook have fun, but extend that and make the game fun, and in the game there isn't only you.

phyrephly has a very good point, contra TheBloodGod`s assertions about specialization and synergy, and that`s the problem of co-operation. So long as you're able to shoot the units you want to shoot and assault the units you want to assault, then synergy just seems to be a matter of taking the right units.

But as the Ork players say, a good plan is to shoot the hitty ones and hit the shooty ones. Beyond co-operating with you to make the game an enjoyable experience, your opponent is not going to co-operate with this strategy. In fact, they're going to try to do the same to you.

In game theory there's an interesting result about multiple indefinite iterations of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and that's the result that there is no optimal pure strategy and the most successful strategies to date have been mixed strategies. Specialization in 40k is like a pure strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma, in that if you constantly play Hawk you'll always do better than if you constantly play Dove even if your opponent also plays a pure Hawk strategy. Basically so long as your opponent co-operates by trying to win via their own pure strategy you will do better than trying to win with a mixed strategy. But if your goal isn't to optimize but to simply do as well as your opponent, then a mixed strategy can stymy a pure strategy intended to do better than its opponent.

It's actually kind of neat how 5th edition 40k implements many of the properties that indefinitely iterated PD games have, such as variable game length, reserves, and a trade-off between deployment and first turn.

DashofPepper posted a battle report a while ago about his tournament experience where he played to a draw. So far as I recall he was quite surprised and put out when his opponent basically played keep-away for the game and eked out a draw instead of throwing his army forward into the literal meat-grinders of DashofPepper's battlewagons. You can probably find it on the Battle Report forums somewhere, prior to that big tournament this past summer.

Basically his opponent had the choice between losing and tying the game, and tying is better than losing, although in a tournament players will usually be more motivated to win (and risk losing) than to tie. In my games I've personally found success by figuring out if my opponent is running the numbers or not, and then acting rationally and playing conservatively if they aren't, or acting irrationally and playing his risk if they aren't because either way they're going to be relying on me to co-operate and to match their style of play.

I think that's why I consider nearly all units in the game to be viable, because I know that expectations of their performance can be subverted, that high risk high reward units pay off as well as the lower risk lower reward units that are favoured by tournament players for their reliability, and that flexibility of both my army and the units in it must be balanced against the potential synergies of units in the army because my opponent may not co-operate with me.

Nurglitch wrote:
I think that's why I consider nearly all units in the game to be viable, because I know that expectations of their performance can be subverted, that high risk high reward units pay off as well as the lower risk lower reward units that are favoured by tournament players for their reliability, and that flexibility of both my army and the units in it must be balanced against the potential synergies of units in the army because my opponent may not co-operate with me.

Something that sums it all up is the following sentence.

Synergy is only relevant if you aren't actually facing an opponent.

Theory-Hammering synergy can "seem" like a win all stragegy but you will still lose to the Dice Gods.